# Official Journal C 173/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.173.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 173 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5225 July 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.173.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 173

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5225 July 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 173/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 1 |
| 2009/C 173/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5469 — Renova Industrie/Sulzer) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2009/C 173/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5551 — F2i/Finavias/ERG) (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 173/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

1

2009/C 173/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5469 — Renova Industrie/Sulzer) (
  1
  )

1

5

2009/C 173/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5551 — F2i/Finavias/ERG) (
  1
  )

1

5

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 173/04 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |
| 2009/C 173/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 November 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (2) — Rapporteur: Lithuania | 7 |
| 2009/C 173/06 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in the Carglass Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 9 |
| 2009/C 173/07 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 1 July 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (1) — Rapporteur: Lithuania | 11 |
| 2009/C 173/08 | Summary of Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass) | 13 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 173/09 | Notice of application for a licence to prospect for oil and gas designated Gold — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Industry and Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.) | 17 |
| 2009/C 173/10 | Notice of application for a licence to explore for oil and gas designated Petralia Soprana — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.) | 20 |
| 2009/C 173/11 | Notice of application for an oil and gas exploration licence designated Vita — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.) | 22 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 173/04

Euro exchange rates

6

2009/C 173/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 November 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (2) — Rapporteur: Lithuania

7

2009/C 173/06

Final report of the Hearing Officer in the Carglass Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

9

2009/C 173/07

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 1 July 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (1) — Rapporteur: Lithuania

11

2009/C 173/08

Summary of Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass)

13

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 173/09

Notice of application for a licence to prospect for oil and gas designated Gold — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Industry and Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.)

17

2009/C 173/10

Notice of application for a licence to explore for oil and gas designated Petralia Soprana — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.)

20

2009/C 173/11

Notice of application for an oil and gas exploration licence designated Vita — Republic of Italy — Region of Sicily — Regional Ministry of Industry — Regional Department of Mining — Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy (U.R.I.G.)

22

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 173/12 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV) (
  1
  ) | 24 |
| 2009/C 173/13 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5581 — Euroports Holding/Benelux Port Holdings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 25 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 173/12

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV) (
  1
  )

1

24

2009/C 173/13

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5581 — Euroports Holding/Benelux Port Holdings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

25

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

2009/C 173/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 28.5.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 59/03 (ex N 667/02 and N 665/02) |
| Member State | The Netherlands |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Veemarkt Leeuwarden |
| Legal basis | Kaderwet LNV-subsidies, Algemene subsidieverordening Fryslan, Algemene subsidieverordening Leeuwarden |
| Type of measure | One off investment support and operation support |
| Objective | Investment aid was necessary to be in line with new national legislation, in which additional conditions are set for hygiene and animal welfare after the outbreak of FMD in 2001 Operating aid was necessary to offset the costs of reopening with investments and significant changes in the business process due to regulation changes. |
| Form of aid | One of measure, investment support, subsidy |
| Budget | Investment aid of 40 % of EUR 1 470 000, and EUR 223 500 operating aid in the first six months of reopening. |
| Intensity | 40 % |
| Duration (period) | 2001 |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture — Trade in live animals |
| Name and address of the granting authority | City Council of Friesland |
| Leeuwarden |
| NEDERLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

28.5.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 59/03 (ex N 667/02 and N 665/02)

Member State

The Netherlands

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Veemarkt Leeuwarden

Legal basis

Kaderwet LNV-subsidies, Algemene subsidieverordening Fryslan, Algemene subsidieverordening Leeuwarden

Type of measure

One off investment support and operation support

Objective

Investment aid was necessary to be in line with new national legislation, in which additional conditions are set for hygiene and animal welfare after the outbreak of FMD in 2001 Operating aid was necessary to offset the costs of reopening with investments and significant changes in the business process due to regulation changes.

Form of aid

One of measure, investment support, subsidy

Budget

Investment aid of 40 % of EUR 1 470 000, and EUR 223 500 operating aid in the first six months of reopening.

Intensity

40 %

Duration (period)

2001

Economic sectors

Agriculture — Trade in live animals

Name and address of the granting authority

City Council of Friesland

Leeuwarden

NEDERLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17.6.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 99/08 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Abengoa Bioenergy Germany GmbH |
| Legal basis | Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 vom 15. Juli 2006 in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Februar 2007 (BGBl. 2007 I S. 282) (InvZulG 2007) and Investitionszulagengesetz 2010 vom 7. Dezember 2008 (InvZulG 2010). |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Subsidy |
| Budget | EUR 64 252 000 in discounted value |
| Intensity | 11,73 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 2014 |
| Economic sectors | Annex I |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Finanzamt Ribnitz-Damgarten |
| Sandhufe 3 |
| 18311 Rignitz-Damgarten |
| DEUTSCHLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

17.6.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 99/08

Member State

Germany

Region

Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Abengoa Bioenergy Germany GmbH

Legal basis

Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 vom 15. Juli 2006 in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Februar 2007 (BGBl. 2007 I S. 282) (InvZulG 2007) and Investitionszulagengesetz 2010 vom 7. Dezember 2008 (InvZulG 2010).

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Subsidy

Budget

EUR 64 252 000 in discounted value

Intensity

11,73 %

Duration (period)

Until 2014

Economic sectors

Annex I

Name and address of the granting authority

Finanzamt Ribnitz-Damgarten

Sandhufe 3

18311 Rignitz-Damgarten

DEUTSCHLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.5.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 346/08 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | Catalonia |
| Title (and/or name of beneficiary) | Medidas para la integración, creación o ampliación de cooperativas y otras entidades agrarias |
| Legal basis | Orden AAR/320/2007, de 3 de septiembre, por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras de las ayudas plurianuales para el fomento de la modernización, la ínter cooperación y la concentración de las cooperativas y otras entidades asociativas agrarias, y se convocan las correspondientes al año 2007, et Ordenes anuales. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | To promote mutual cooperation and merger among agricultural cooperatives and associations |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Total of EUR 59 500 000 for the period 2007-2013, with annual expenditure of approximately EUR 8 500 000. |
| Intensity | Variable |
| Duration (period) | 2007-2013 |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Generalitat de Catalunya |
| Departament d'Agricultura, Alimentació i Acció Rural |
| Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 612-614 |
| 08007 Barcelona |
| ESPAÑA |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.5.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 346/08

Member State

Spain

Region

Catalonia

Title (and/or name of beneficiary)

Medidas para la integración, creación o ampliación de cooperativas y otras entidades agrarias

Legal basis

Orden AAR/320/2007, de 3 de septiembre, por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras de las ayudas plurianuales para el fomento de la modernización, la ínter cooperación y la concentración de las cooperativas y otras entidades asociativas agrarias, y se convocan las correspondientes al año 2007, et Ordenes anuales.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

To promote mutual cooperation and merger among agricultural cooperatives and associations

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Total of EUR 59 500 000 for the period 2007-2013, with annual expenditure of approximately EUR 8 500 000.

Intensity

Variable

Duration (period)

2007-2013

Economic sectors

Agriculture

Name and address of the granting authority

Generalitat de Catalunya

Departament d'Agricultura, Alimentació i Acció Rural

Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 612-614

08007 Barcelona

ESPAÑA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 11.5.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 376/08 |
| Member State | Greece |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Μέτρα υπέρ των παραγωγών της χώρας που οι γεωργικές τους εκμεταλλεύσεις ζημιώθηκαν από θεομηνίες (κατολισθήσεις, πλημμύρα) και δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες (ανεμοθύελλα, παγετός, χιονόπτωση) κατά τη χρονική περίοδο Ιανουαρίου — Μαρτίου 2008. |
| Legal basis | Draft joint Ministerial Decision |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | To offset the effects of adverse weather conditions and natural disasters |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | EUR 80 million |
| Intensity | Up to 80 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 31 March 2012 |
| Economic sector | Agriculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | ELGA |
| Μesoyion 45 |
| 115 10 Αthens |
| GREECE |

Date of adoption of the decision

11.5.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 376/08

Member State

Greece

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Μέτρα υπέρ των παραγωγών της χώρας που οι γεωργικές τους εκμεταλλεύσεις ζημιώθηκαν από θεομηνίες (κατολισθήσεις, πλημμύρα) και δυσμενείς καιρικές συνθήκες (ανεμοθύελλα, παγετός, χιονόπτωση) κατά τη χρονική περίοδο Ιανουαρίου — Μαρτίου 2008.

Legal basis

Draft joint Ministerial Decision

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

To offset the effects of adverse weather conditions and natural disasters

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

EUR 80 million

Intensity

Up to 80 %

Duration (period)

Until 31 March 2012

Economic sector

Agriculture

Name and address of the granting authority

ELGA

Μesoyion 45

115 10 Αthens

GREECE

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm.

| Date of adoption of the decision | 18.6.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 59/09 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | Flanders |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Verlenging van de agro-milieumaatregel botanische beheer |
| Legal basis | Artikel 56 van het Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 6 juni 2008 betreffende het sluiten van beheersovereenkomsten en het toekennen van vergoedingen ter uitvoering van Verordening (EG) nr. 1257/2005 van de Raad van 20 september 2005 inzake steun voor plattelandsontwikkeling. |
| Type of measure | Agro environmental aid |
| Objective | Prolongation of agri-environmental measure in between old and new contracts Prolongation with 3, 6 or 9 months of the old agri environmental agreement based on the Belgian Rural Development Program for Flanders 2000–2006). |
| Form of aid | Subsidy, compensation |
| Budget | 0,01 million EUR per year, 0,03 million EUR in total |
| Intensity | Max. 100 % |
| Duration (period) | 2009-2012 |
| Economic sectors | Agricultural sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

18.6.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 59/09

Member State

Belgium

Region

Flanders

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Verlenging van de agro-milieumaatregel botanische beheer

Legal basis

Artikel 56 van het Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 6 juni 2008 betreffende het sluiten van beheersovereenkomsten en het toekennen van vergoedingen ter uitvoering van Verordening (EG) nr. 1257/2005 van de Raad van 20 september 2005 inzake steun voor plattelandsontwikkeling.

Type of measure

Agro environmental aid

Objective

Prolongation of agri-environmental measure in between old and new contracts Prolongation with 3, 6 or 9 months of the old agri environmental agreement based on the Belgian Rural Development Program for Flanders 2000–2006).

Form of aid

Subsidy, compensation

Budget

0,01 million EUR per year, 0,03 million EUR in total

Intensity

Max. 100 %

Duration (period)

2009-2012

Economic sectors

Agricultural sector

Name and address of the granting authority

—

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5469 — Renova Industrie/Sulzer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 173/02

On 17 June 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5469. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5469. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5551 — F2i/Finavias/ERG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 173/03

On 22 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5551. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5551. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 July 2009

2009/C 173/04

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4227 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4447 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86700 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5995 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5217 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8600 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,472 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 266,59 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7030 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1880 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2150 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1100 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7413 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5407 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0259 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1663 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0487 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 775,37 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0494 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7185 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3320 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 226,34 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0214 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,387 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0990 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,322 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6904 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7555 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,6170 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4227

JPY

Japanese yen

134,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4447

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86700

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5995

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5217

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8600

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,472

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

266,59

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7030

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1880

RON

Romanian leu

4,2150

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1100

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7413

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5407

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0259

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1663

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0487

KRW

South Korean won

1 775,37

ZAR

South African rand

11,0494

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7185

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3320

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 226,34

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0214

PHP

Philippine peso

68,387

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0990

THB

Thai baht

48,322

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6904

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7555

INR

Indian rupee

68,6170

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 November 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (2)

Rapporteur: Lithuania

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the method of calculating the relevant sales. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the method of calculating the relevant sales.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that no increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect is required in this case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that no increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect is required in this case.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| BELGIË/BELGIQUE | BULGARIA | ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA | DANMARK | DEUTSCHLAND |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| Jeanne MUTAMBA | | | | Tobias GLASS |

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

BULGARIA

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

Jeanne MUTAMBA

Tobias GLASS

| EESTI | ÉIRE-IRELAND | ELLADA | ESPAÑA | FRANCE |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | Umberto BERKANI |

EESTI

ÉIRE-IRELAND

ELLADA

ESPAÑA

FRANCE

Umberto BERKANI

| ITALIA | KYPROS/KIBRIS | LATVIJA | LIETUVA | LUXEMBOURG |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | Rapporteur | |
| | | | Giedre JARMALYTE | |

ITALIA

KYPROS/KIBRIS

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

Rapporteur

Giedre JARMALYTE

| MAGYARORSZÁG | MALTA | NEDERLAND | ÖSTERREICH | POLSKA |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

| PORTUGAL | ROMANIA | SLOVENIJA | SLOVENSKO | SUOMI-FINLAND |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

PORTUGAL

ROMANIA

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI-FINLAND

| SVERIGE | UNITED KINGDOM |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/9

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in the Carglass Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

2009/C 173/06

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations:

INTRODUCTION

In February and March 2005, the Commission conducted inspections in several Member States at the premises of major car glass producers. In February 2005, the Commission received an application for immunity or alternatively reduction of fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice (1). On the basis of the information collected during the investigation, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the three main suppliers of car glass, Saint-Gobain, Pilkington and AGC, entered into agreements and/or concerted practices concerning car glass supplies and also exchanged sensitive commercial information contrary to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from at least 1997 until at least October 2004 in the EU. Soliver, a smaller Belgian supplier, participated in such agreements and/or concerted practices only from December 1998 to March 2003.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE

Statement of Objections and Time to Reply

The Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) on 19 April 2007 to the following parties:

| (i) | Asahi Glass Co. Ltd and its subsidiaries; Glaverbel SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Glaverbel UK, Splintex France SA, Splintex UK Limited, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Asahi Glass Co. Ltd and its subsidiaries; Glaverbel SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Glaverbel UK, Splintex France SA, Splintex UK Limited, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH;

| (ii) | La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA and its subsidiaries; Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA and its subsidiaries; Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA;

| (iii) | Pilkington Group Limited and its subsidiaries; Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia Spa; and |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Pilkington Group Limited and its subsidiaries; Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia Spa; and

| (iv) | Soliver NV. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Soliver NV.

The parties received the SO on 20 April 2007 and were given two months to reply. Upon the reasoned requests of the parties, the responsible Hearing Officer at that time, Serge Durande, granted extensions to all parties, except La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA.

All the parties responded in due time.

Access to file

The parties received access to the file through a DVD on 25 April and through another DVD on 30 April 2007. Corporate statements made in the framework of the leniency application were accessible at the Commission’s premises.

ORAL PROCEDURE

Oral Hearing

An Oral Hearing was held on 24 September 2007, which was attended by representatives of all parties.

Soliver addressed a letter to Hearing Officer Serge Durande on 15 October 2007, in which it further elaborated on certain issues concerning the investigation that had already been raised during the Oral Hearing. In his letter of 26 October 2007, the Hearing Officer explained that the Commission has a wide discretion on how to conduct investigations against undertakings in antitrust proceedings subject to principles such as the principles of proportionality and protection against arbitrary inspections (2).

THE DRAFT DECISION

The draft decision differs from the Statement of Objections in the following regards:

| — | the duration of the infringement and the duration of the respective parties’ participation have been shortened in comparison to the SO, |
| --- | --- |

—

the duration of the infringement and the duration of the respective parties’ participation have been shortened in comparison to the SO,

| — | some allegations contained in the SO, in particular concerning the extent of certain parties’ involvement in the infringement (i.e., ring-leader role; representation of a party by another in the cartel discussions; discussions about the alignment of production strategies for dark tinted glass), have been dropped. |
| --- | --- |

—

some allegations contained in the SO, in particular concerning the extent of certain parties’ involvement in the infringement (i.e., ring-leader role; representation of a party by another in the cartel discussions; discussions about the alignment of production strategies for dark tinted glass), have been dropped.

It is my opinion that the draft Decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

I conclude that the rights of the parties to be heard in writing and orally have been respected in the present case.

Brussels, 3 July 2008.

Michael ALBERS

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, pp. 3-5.

1

(2)  Judgement of the ECJ of 22 October 2002 in Case C-94/00 Roquette Frères SA v Commission, paragraphs 27, 61-81.

2

Roquette Frères SA v Commission

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/11

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 1 July 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.125 — PO/Carglass (1)

Rapporteur: Lithuania

2009/C 173/07

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of the scope of the infringement corresponding, product-wide, to the supply of carglass parts to vehicle manufacturers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of the scope of the infringement corresponding, product-wide, to the supply of carglass parts to vehicle manufacturers.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the geographic scope of this case is the EEA, since the sales of carglass parts are supplied to car manufacturers in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the geographic scope of this case is the EEA, since the sales of carglass parts are supplied to car manufacturers in the EEA.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of illicit behaviour, corresponding to agreements and/or concerted practices coordinating prices, supply strategies, sharing customers as well as monitoring and applying a compensation mechanism in order to maintain a certain market share stability. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's assessment of illicit behaviour, corresponding to agreements and/or concerted practices coordinating prices, supply strategies, sharing customers as well as monitoring and applying a compensation mechanism in order to maintain a certain market share stability.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the infringement began at the latest on 10 March 1998 and has lasted until at least 11 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the infringement began at the latest on 10 March 1998 and has lasted until at least 11 March 2003.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the exchanging of information between the relevant companies is inherent in the illicit practices and forms an integral part of them. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the exchanging of information between the relevant companies is inherent in the illicit practices and forms an integral part of them.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the object and effects of the mentioned illicit practices are restrictions of competition within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and that they are able to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that the object and effects of the mentioned illicit practices are restrictions of competition within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and that they are able to distort competition.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agree in particular with the European Commission's assessment that all the mentioned illicit practices form part of an overall scheme in pursuit of a single anti-competitive economic aim, and therefore constitutes a single, continuous and complex infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agree in particular with the European Commission's assessment that all the mentioned illicit practices form part of an overall scheme in pursuit of a single anti-competitive economic aim, and therefore constitutes a single, continuous and complex infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that Article 81(3) of the Treaty could not be applied in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that Article 81(3) of the Treaty could not be applied in the present case.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 12. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines as well as on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines as well as on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. A minority abstains.

| 13. | The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission as regards the application of the 2002 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines, including the rejection of the immunity. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Advisory Committee agree with the European Commission as regards the application of the 2002 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines, including the rejection of the immunity.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| BELGIË/BELGIQUE | BULGARIA | ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA | DANMARK | DEUTSCHLAND |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| Mr Dirk VERTONGEN | | | | Mr Tobias GLASS |

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

BULGARIA

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

Mr Dirk VERTONGEN

Mr Tobias GLASS

| EESTI | ÉIRE-IRELAND | ELLADA | ESPAÑA | FRANCE |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | Mr. John BURKE | | Mr. Oswaldo GARCIA-HERNAN. | Ms Catherine AMIEL |

EESTI

ÉIRE-IRELAND

ELLADA

ESPAÑA

FRANCE

Mr. John BURKE

Mr. Oswaldo GARCIA-HERNAN.

Ms Catherine AMIEL

| ITALIA | KYPROS/KIBRIS | LATVIJA | LIETUVA | LUXEMBOURG |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| Mr Flavio PAPADIA | | | Ms Giedre JARMALYTE | |

ITALIA

KYPROS/KIBRIS

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

Mr Flavio PAPADIA

Ms Giedre JARMALYTE

| MAGYARORSZÁG | MALTA | NEDERLAND | ÖSTERREICH | POLSKA |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | Ms. HIJMANS | Mr KOPRIVNIKAR | |

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

Ms. HIJMANS

Mr KOPRIVNIKAR

| PORTUGAL | ROMANIA | SLOVENIJA | SLOVENSKO | SUOMI-FINLAND |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| | | | | Ms Pirjo ASPINEN |

PORTUGAL

ROMANIA

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI-FINLAND

Ms Pirjo ASPINEN

| SVERIGE | UNITED KINGDOM |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| Mr. Peter DELDEN | Mr Terry BUTLER |

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Peter DELDEN

Mr Terry BUTLER

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/13

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 12 November 2008 (1)

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass)

(Only the English, French and Dutch texts are authentic)

2009/C 173/08

I.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | On 12 November 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 12 November 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

| 2. | A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Directorate-General for Competition's website at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index.html |
| --- | --- |

2.

A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Directorate-General for Competition's website at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index.html

II.   CASE DESCRIPTION

1.   Procedure

| 3. | This case started as an ex officio investigation. Inspections were carried out on 22 and 23 February 2005 at the premises of companies belonging to the Glaverbel (Asahi's subsidiary, recently renamed AGC Flat Glass Europe), Saint-Gobain, Pilkington and Soliver groups. On 15 March 2005, the Commission carried out a second round of inspections at the premises of Saint-Gobain and Pilkington. In between the two rounds of inspections, on 22 February and 9 March 2005, Glaverbel and Asahi respectively applied for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, reduction of fines. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This case started as an ex officio investigation. Inspections were carried out on 22 and 23 February 2005 at the premises of companies belonging to the Glaverbel (Asahi's subsidiary, recently renamed AGC Flat Glass Europe), Saint-Gobain, Pilkington and Soliver groups. On 15 March 2005, the Commission carried out a second round of inspections at the premises of Saint-Gobain and Pilkington. In between the two rounds of inspections, on 22 February and 9 March 2005, Glaverbel and Asahi respectively applied for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, reduction of fines.

| 4. | Several written requests for information were addressed to the undertakings involved in the anti-competitive arrangements. The Commission rejected Asahi's and Glaverbel's request for immunity under point 8 of the Leniency Notice and informed them that it intended to grant them a reduction of 30-50 % of any fines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Several written requests for information were addressed to the undertakings involved in the anti-competitive arrangements. The Commission rejected Asahi's and Glaverbel's request for immunity under point 8 of the Leniency Notice and informed them that it intended to grant them a reduction of 30-50 % of any fines.

| 5. | The Statement of Objections was adopted on 18 April 2007 and notified to the parties. An oral hearing was held on 24 September 2007. All four groups of companies participated in the hearing. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Statement of Objections was adopted on 18 April 2007 and notified to the parties. An oral hearing was held on 24 September 2007. All four groups of companies participated in the hearing.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions met on 1 July and on 7 November 2008 and issued a favourable opinion (2). |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions met on 1 July and on 7 November 2008 and issued a favourable opinion (2).

2.   Summary of the infringement

| 7. | Automotive glass or carglass is made from float glass, which is the basic flat glass product category. The automotive products consist of different glass parts such as windscreens, sidelights (windows for front and back doors), backlights (rear window), quarter lights (back window next to rear door window), and sunroofs. The glass parts can moreover be tinted in different colour grades as opposed to clear glass. ‘Privacy’ glass, or ‘dark tail’ glass, is a specific category of tinted glass which reduces light and heat transmission inside the car. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Automotive glass or carglass is made from float glass, which is the basic flat glass product category. The automotive products consist of different glass parts such as windscreens, sidelights (windows for front and back doors), backlights (rear window), quarter lights (back window next to rear door window), and sunroofs. The glass parts can moreover be tinted in different colour grades as opposed to clear glass. ‘Privacy’ glass, or ‘dark tail’ glass, is a specific category of tinted glass which reduces light and heat transmission inside the car.

| 8. | The decision concerns the supply of carglass for first assembly or replacement to manufacturers of light vehicles, in particular passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, the so-called ‘original equipment’ market (‘OE’-market). Customers were basically all major groups of car manufacturers with European production. There are very few global groups manufacturing carglass, among them AGC, Pilkington and Saint-Gobain, which are also by far the three leading suppliers in Europe. Other suppliers like Soliver have a rather regional footprint. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The decision concerns the supply of carglass for first assembly or replacement to manufacturers of light vehicles, in particular passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, the so-called ‘original equipment’ market (‘OE’-market). Customers were basically all major groups of car manufacturers with European production. There are very few global groups manufacturing carglass, among them AGC, Pilkington and Saint-Gobain, which are also by far the three leading suppliers in Europe. Other suppliers like Soliver have a rather regional footprint.

| 9. | Competitive conditions for the supply of carglass to car manufacturers are homogenous at EEA level. Therefore, the OE carglass market is considered to be EEA-wide. The total sales of carglass in the EEA amounted to more than EUR 2 billion in 2002, that is the last full year of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Competitive conditions for the supply of carglass to car manufacturers are homogenous at EEA level. Therefore, the OE carglass market is considered to be EEA-wide. The total sales of carglass in the EEA amounted to more than EUR 2 billion in 2002, that is the last full year of the infringement.

| 10. | The addressees referred to below participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter ‘EEA Agreement’). The infringement consisted in concerted allocation of contracts concerning the supply of carglass for all major car manufacturers in the EEA, through coordination of pricing policies and supply strategies aimed at maintaining an overall stability of the parties’ position on the market concerned. In this respect, the competitors also monitored the decisions taken during these meetings and contacts and agreed on correcting measures in order to compensate for each other when previously decided allocations of glass pieces proved insufficient in practice to ensure an overall degree of stability in their respective market shares. The period of infringement retained in the decision is from 10 March 1998 to 11 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The addressees referred to below participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter ‘EEA Agreement’). The infringement consisted in concerted allocation of contracts concerning the supply of carglass for all major car manufacturers in the EEA, through coordination of pricing policies and supply strategies aimed at maintaining an overall stability of the parties’ position on the market concerned. In this respect, the competitors also monitored the decisions taken during these meetings and contacts and agreed on correcting measures in order to compensate for each other when previously decided allocations of glass pieces proved insufficient in practice to ensure an overall degree of stability in their respective market shares. The period of infringement retained in the decision is from 10 March 1998 to 11 March 2003.

III.   ADDRESSEES

| 11. | The decision is addressed to the following legal entities which belong to the four participating undertakings:






  (a) | Asahi Glass Company Limited; AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV; AGC Automotive Europe SA; Glaverbel France SA; Glaverbel Italy S.r.l.; Splintex France Sarl; Splintex UK Limited; AGC Automotive Germany GmbH; |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

The decision is addressed to the following legal entities which belong to the four participating undertakings:

(a)

Asahi Glass Company Limited; AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV; AGC Automotive Europe SA; Glaverbel France SA; Glaverbel Italy S.r.l.; Splintex France Sarl; Splintex UK Limited; AGC Automotive Germany GmbH;

| (b) | La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA; Saint-Gobain Glass France SA; Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA; Saint-Gobain Glass France SA; Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA;

| (c) | Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa;

| (d) | Soliver NV. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Soliver NV.

| 12. | Liability of the ultimate parent companies is established on the basis of the presumption of the exercise of decisive influence over their wholly-owned subsidiaries, which is reinforced by several additional indicia. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Liability of the ultimate parent companies is established on the basis of the presumption of the exercise of decisive influence over their wholly-owned subsidiaries, which is reinforced by several additional indicia.

IV.   REMEDIES

| 13. | In this case the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) (hereafter the ‘2006 Guidelines on Fines’) apply. |
| --- | --- |

13.

In this case the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) (hereafter the ‘2006 Guidelines on Fines’) apply.

1.   Basic Amount of the fines

| 14. | According to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, the basic amount of the fine has to be determined as a proportion of the value of the sales of the relevant product made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last full business year of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of the infringement, plus an additional amount, also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, in order to deter horizontal price fixing agreements (‘entry fee’). |
| --- | --- |

14.

According to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, the basic amount of the fine has to be determined as a proportion of the value of the sales of the relevant product made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last full business year of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of the infringement, plus an additional amount, also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, in order to deter horizontal price fixing agreements (‘entry fee’).

1.1.   Calculation of the value of sales

| 15. | Pursuant to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed the Commission normally takes into account the value of each undertaking's sales of goods to which the infringement directly or indirectly relates in the geographic area concerned within the EEA for the last full business year of the undertaking's participation in the infringement. However, in view of the particularities of this case, the basic amount was calculated on the basis of an average of the sales during the infringement period, normalised to one year, rather than on the basis of the last full business year of each undertaking's participation in the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Pursuant to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed the Commission normally takes into account the value of each undertaking's sales of goods to which the infringement directly or indirectly relates in the geographic area concerned within the EEA for the last full business year of the undertaking's participation in the infringement. However, in view of the particularities of this case, the basic amount was calculated on the basis of an average of the sales during the infringement period, normalised to one year, rather than on the basis of the last full business year of each undertaking's participation in the infringement.

| 16. | Although the economic aim of the participants in the infringement was from the beginning to keep their respective market shares at EEA-level stable, the Commission has considered the fact that in the first two and a half years, from March 1998 to the first half of 2000, it has direct evidence of cartel activity for only a part of all European car manufacturers. While this does not mean that other car manufacturers were not the subject of cartel discussions in the first two and a half years, the Commission has taken account of those two and a half years as a ‘roll-out phase’ during which the cartelists only progressively developed their collusive behaviour towards all car manufacturers. It is likely that in this trial phase the carglass suppliers rigged the bids only within selected large accounts. Consequently, the Commission takes as relevant sales for the calculation of the fines for the first ramp-up period only sales by carglass suppliers to those car manufacturers for which there is direct evidence that they were subject to cartel arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Although the economic aim of the participants in the infringement was from the beginning to keep their respective market shares at EEA-level stable, the Commission has considered the fact that in the first two and a half years, from March 1998 to the first half of 2000, it has direct evidence of cartel activity for only a part of all European car manufacturers. While this does not mean that other car manufacturers were not the subject of cartel discussions in the first two and a half years, the Commission has taken account of those two and a half years as a ‘roll-out phase’ during which the cartelists only progressively developed their collusive behaviour towards all car manufacturers. It is likely that in this trial phase the carglass suppliers rigged the bids only within selected large accounts. Consequently, the Commission takes as relevant sales for the calculation of the fines for the first ramp-up period only sales by carglass suppliers to those car manufacturers for which there is direct evidence that they were subject to cartel arrangements.

| 17. | At the end of the infringement period, i.e. between the break down of the so-called Club discussions of the three major suppliers on 3 September 2002 and the end of the infringement in March 2003, it can be argued that the cartel activity slowed down after the exit of the important player Pilkington. Therefore, the Commission takes into account as relevant only those sales relating to manufacturers for which there is direct evidence that they were subject to cartel contacts in this period which, again, is a very conservative interpretation of the evidence in favour of the undertakings concerned. |
| --- | --- |

17.

At the end of the infringement period, i.e. between the break down of the so-called Club discussions of the three major suppliers on 3 September 2002 and the end of the infringement in March 2003, it can be argued that the cartel activity slowed down after the exit of the important player Pilkington. Therefore, the Commission takes into account as relevant only those sales relating to manufacturers for which there is direct evidence that they were subject to cartel contacts in this period which, again, is a very conservative interpretation of the evidence in favour of the undertakings concerned.

| 18. | As for the period from 1 July 2000 to 3 September 2002, however, the OE manufacturers discussed at meetings and/or contacts accounted for 90 % or more of the EEA sales of each carglass supplier. In the light of the number of contacts and of the evidence available referred to in the Decision, it is presumed that the whole market was permeated by the cartel arrangements during this period. Therefore, the entire EEA-sales in the period from 1 July 2000 until 3 September 2002 are taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

18.

As for the period from 1 July 2000 to 3 September 2002, however, the OE manufacturers discussed at meetings and/or contacts accounted for 90 % or more of the EEA sales of each carglass supplier. In the light of the number of contacts and of the evidence available referred to in the Decision, it is presumed that the whole market was permeated by the cartel arrangements during this period. Therefore, the entire EEA-sales in the period from 1 July 2000 until 3 September 2002 are taken into account.

| 19. | In sum, the Commission has, in line with the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, applied a more calibrated approach and reduced the weight of the roll-out period between the beginning of the infringement and 30 June 2000 as well as the final stage from September 2002 to 11 March 2003 by only taking account of each carglass supplier's value of sales to those car manufacturers for which there is direct evidence in the Decision of cartel arrangements. The sales relevant for the calculation of the fines are then determined for each carglass supplier on the basis of the total sales in all three periods weighted as described above, divided through the months of participation in the infringement and multiplied by 12 to build an annual average. |
| --- | --- |

19.

In sum, the Commission has, in line with the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, applied a more calibrated approach and reduced the weight of the roll-out period between the beginning of the infringement and 30 June 2000 as well as the final stage from September 2002 to 11 March 2003 by only taking account of each carglass supplier's value of sales to those car manufacturers for which there is direct evidence in the Decision of cartel arrangements. The sales relevant for the calculation of the fines are then determined for each carglass supplier on the basis of the total sales in all three periods weighted as described above, divided through the months of participation in the infringement and multiplied by 12 to build an annual average.

1.2.   Determination of the basic amount of the fine

| 20. | According to the Guidelines on Fines, there are several criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage of the relevant sales, i.e. the nature of the infringement (in this case allocation of customers with a view to keep shares of supply as stable as possible), the geographic scope (EEA), the combined market share of the undertakings participating in the infringement (in this case over 60 %) and implementation. The Commission did not take into account implementation when calculating the basic amount of the fine, despite some evidence that the infringement was implemented at times. Having considered these factors, the decision applies in this case a variable amount of 16 %. |
| --- | --- |

20.

According to the Guidelines on Fines, there are several criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage of the relevant sales, i.e. the nature of the infringement (in this case allocation of customers with a view to keep shares of supply as stable as possible), the geographic scope (EEA), the combined market share of the undertakings participating in the infringement (in this case over 60 %) and implementation. The Commission did not take into account implementation when calculating the basic amount of the fine, despite some evidence that the infringement was implemented at times. Having considered these factors, the decision applies in this case a variable amount of 16 %.

| 21. | Taking into account that the infringement lasted for up to 5 years, but not all participants were involved during the entire period, the variable amount was multiplied by 5 in the case of Asahi and Saint-Gobain, by 4,5 in the case of Pilkington and by 1,5 in the case of the Soliver. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Taking into account that the infringement lasted for up to 5 years, but not all participants were involved during the entire period, the variable amount was multiplied by 5 in the case of Asahi and Saint-Gobain, by 4,5 in the case of Pilkington and by 1,5 in the case of the Soliver.

| 22. | In order to deter undertakings from entering into horizontal customer allocation agreements such as the one at issue in this case, the basic amount of the fines to be imposed was increased by an additional amount, as indicated in point 25 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. For this purpose, an additional amount of 16 % of the value of sales was considered appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

22.

In order to deter undertakings from entering into horizontal customer allocation agreements such as the one at issue in this case, the basic amount of the fines to be imposed was increased by an additional amount, as indicated in point 25 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. For this purpose, an additional amount of 16 % of the value of sales was considered appropriate.

2.   Aggravating circumstances

| 23. | At the time the infringement took place, Saint-Gobain had already been the addressee of two previous Commission decisions concerning cartel activities which are relevant as aggravating circumstances in this case (4). The fact that an undertaking has been repeating the same or similar type of anticompetitive conduct shows that the penalties it had been subjected to in the past did not prompt it to change its anticompetitive conduct. That kind of anticompetitive conduct constitutes an aggravating circumstance that can justify an increase of 60 % in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on this undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

23.

At the time the infringement took place, Saint-Gobain had already been the addressee of two previous Commission decisions concerning cartel activities which are relevant as aggravating circumstances in this case (4). The fact that an undertaking has been repeating the same or similar type of anticompetitive conduct shows that the penalties it had been subjected to in the past did not prompt it to change its anticompetitive conduct. That kind of anticompetitive conduct constitutes an aggravating circumstance that can justify an increase of 60 % in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on this undertaking.

3.   Mitigating circumstances

| 24. | There are no mitigating circumstances to be applied in this case. |
| --- | --- |

24.

There are no mitigating circumstances to be applied in this case.

4.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| 25. | The 10 % worldwide turnover limit provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is applied to the fines calculated as appropriate. In this case, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover is attained in respect of the fine to be imposed on Soliver. The fine imposed on Soliver must therefore not exceed EUR 4,396 million. |
| --- | --- |

25.

The 10 % worldwide turnover limit provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is applied to the fines calculated as appropriate. In this case, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover is attained in respect of the fine to be imposed on Soliver. The fine imposed on Soliver must therefore not exceed EUR 4,396 million.

5.   Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice

| 26. | As mentioned under point 3 above, Asahi and its subsidiary Glaverbel applied for immunity and in the alternative for a reduction of fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

26.

As mentioned under point 3 above, Asahi and its subsidiary Glaverbel applied for immunity and in the alternative for a reduction of fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice.

5.1.   Immunity

| 27. | The Commission rejected Glaverbel and Asahi's application for immunity under points 8(a) and (b) of the Leniency Notice for the following reasons. |
| --- | --- |

27.

The Commission rejected Glaverbel and Asahi's application for immunity under points 8(a) and (b) of the Leniency Notice for the following reasons.

| 28. | As inspections had already been carried out before Asahi/Glaverbel's application, immunity under point 8(a) was no longer available. |
| --- | --- |

28.

As inspections had already been carried out before Asahi/Glaverbel's application, immunity under point 8(a) was no longer available.

| 29. | Points 8(b) and 10 of the Leniency Notice specify that immunity from fines will only be granted on the cumulative conditions that the Commission did not have, at the time of the application, sufficient evidence to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty in connection with the alleged cartel and that the evidence submitted may, in the Commission's view, enable it to make such a finding. However, at the time of the leniency application, the Commission already had in its possession contemporaneous evidence copied during the first inspection which enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Immunity under point 8(b) was therefore at the time of the application no longer available for the infringement referred to in this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Points 8(b) and 10 of the Leniency Notice specify that immunity from fines will only be granted on the cumulative conditions that the Commission did not have, at the time of the application, sufficient evidence to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty in connection with the alleged cartel and that the evidence submitted may, in the Commission's view, enable it to make such a finding. However, at the time of the leniency application, the Commission already had in its possession contemporaneous evidence copied during the first inspection which enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Immunity under point 8(b) was therefore at the time of the application no longer available for the infringement referred to in this Decision.

5.2.   Significant added value

| 30. | Asahi/Glaverbel was the first and only undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice. Considering the value of their contribution to the Commission's case, the early stage at which they provided this contribution and the extent of their cooperation following their submissions, the Commission has decided to grant Asahi and Glaverbel a reduction of 50 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Asahi/Glaverbel was the first and only undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice. Considering the value of their contribution to the Commission's case, the early stage at which they provided this contribution and the extent of their cooperation following their submissions, the Commission has decided to grant Asahi and Glaverbel a reduction of 50 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.

V.   DECISION

| 31. | The addresses of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows:






  (a) | Asahi Glass Company Limited, AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV, AGC Automotive Europe SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Splintex France Sarl, Splintex UK Limited and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH, from 18 May 1998 to 11 March 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

31.

The addresses of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows:

(a)

Asahi Glass Company Limited, AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV, AGC Automotive Europe SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Splintex France Sarl, Splintex UK Limited and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH, from 18 May 1998 to 11 March 2003;

| (b) | La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA, Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA, from 10 March 1998 to 11 March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA, Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA, from 10 March 1998 to 11 March 2003;

| (c) | Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa, from 10 March 1998 to 3 September 2002; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa, from 10 March 1998 to 3 September 2002;

| (d) | Soliver NV, from 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Soliver NV, from 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003.

| 32. | For the infringements referred to in the previous recital, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Asahi Glass Company Limited, AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV, AGC Automotive Europe SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Splintex France Sarl, Splintex UK Limited and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 113 500 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

32.

For the infringements referred to in the previous recital, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Asahi Glass Company Limited, AGC Flat Glass Europe SA/NV, AGC Automotive Europe SA, Glaverbel France SA, Glaverbel Italy S.r.l., Splintex France Sarl, Splintex UK Limited and AGC Automotive Germany GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 113 500 000;

| (b) | La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA, Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA, jointly and severally: EUR 896 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

La Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA, Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SA, jointly and severally: EUR 896 000 000;

| (c) | Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa, jointly and severally: EUR 370 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Pilkington Group Limited, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia Spa, jointly and severally: EUR 370 000 000;

| (d) | Soliver NV: EUR 4 396 000. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Soliver NV: EUR 4 396 000.

| 33. | The undertakings listed above were ordered to bring to an end the infringements referred to in point 10 above, in so far as they have not already done so, and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in point 10 above and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

33.

The undertakings listed above were ordered to bring to an end the infringements referred to in point 10 above, in so far as they have not already done so, and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in point 10 above and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect.

---

(1)  Reference is made to the Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 as amended by two corrections adopted respectively on 4 December 2008 and 11 February 2009.

(2)  See OJ C , ....2009, p.

(3)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

(4)  Commission Decision of 23 July 1984 in Case IV/30.988 — Flat Glass (Benelux), OJ L 212, 8.8.1984, p. 13 and Commission Decision of 7 December 1988 in Case IV/31.906 — Flat glass (Italy), OJ L 33, 4.2.1989, p. 44.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/17

---

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO PROSPECT FOR OIL AND GAS DESIGNATED GOLD

REPUBLIC OF ITALY — REGION OF SICILY

REGIONAL MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY — REGIONAL DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND MINING

REGIONAL OFFICE FOR HYDROCARBONS AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (U.R.I.G.)

2009/C 173/09

On 17 October 2008, in accordance with Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000, which transposes and implements Directive 94/22/EC, F.M.G. s.r.l., having its registered office at Piazza Salvatore Rizzo No 28, 96010 Melilli (Siracusa) and Tax Code and Siracusa Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Craft and Agriculture (CCIAA) registration No 01073470898, applied to the Regional Minister for Industry, the competent authority for granting mining rights in the Region of Sicily, at Via Ugo La Malfa 87/89, 90146 Palermo, for a licence to prospect for oil and gas in an area conventionally known as ‘Gold’, extending over 74 881,5 ha (748,815 km2) in central north-eastern Sicily within the provinces of Caltanissetta, Enna and Messina. The area borders to the north on non-licence areas, to the east on the territories of the ‘Samperi’ and ‘Gagliano’ licences (EniMed S.p.A.) and the ‘Paternò’ licence (Edison S.p.A.), to the south on the ‘Enna’ licence application area (Italmin s.r.l.) and partly non-licence areas, and to the west on the ‘Petralia Soprana’ licence application area (EniMed S.p.A.).

The Caltanissetta Province municipalities concerned are: Caltanissetta and S. Caterina Villarmosa. The Enna Province municipalities concerned are: Villarosa, Enna, Cerami, Troina, Sperlinga, Nicosia, Agira, Assoro, Regalbuto, Leonforte and Calascibetta. The Messina Province municipalities concerned are: Capizzi and Cesarò.

The perimeter of the area for which the licence is requested is delineated by a continuous line between the 22 points A to W as defined below:

| A. | Trigonometric point at elevation 832 m above sea level at Monte delle Rocche, south-west of the built-up area of S. Caterina Villarmosa, identical to point E of the Casteltermini licence and point D of the Petralia Soprana licence application. |
| --- | --- |

A.

Trigonometric point at elevation 832 m above sea level at Monte delle Rocche, south-west of the built-up area of S. Caterina Villarmosa, identical to point E of the Casteltermini licence and point D of the Petralia Soprana licence application.

| B. | Point located on the north-western edge of the building at 409 m elevation adjacent to State Highway 121 in the Contrada S. Benedetto district, identical to point C of the Petralia Soprana licence application. |
| --- | --- |

B.

Point located on the north-western edge of the building at 409 m elevation adjacent to State Highway 121 in the Contrada S. Benedetto district, identical to point C of the Petralia Soprana licence application.

| C. | Trigonometric point at 1 122 m elevation at Monte Della Grassa, NE of the built-up area of Gangi, identical to point B of the Petralia Soprana licence application. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Trigonometric point at 1 122 m elevation at Monte Della Grassa, NE of the built-up area of Gangi, identical to point B of the Petralia Soprana licence application.

| D. | Point located on the west-south-western edge of the building at 813 m elevation in the Contrada Cara district, identical to point N of the Samperi licence. |
| --- | --- |

D.

Point located on the west-south-western edge of the building at 813 m elevation in the Contrada Cara district, identical to point N of the Samperi licence.

| E. | Trigonometric point at 925 m elevation above sea level at Serra della Croce, identical to point M of the Samperi licence. |
| --- | --- |

E.

Trigonometric point at 925 m elevation above sea level at Serra della Croce, identical to point M of the Samperi licence.

| F. | South-western edge of the house at elevation 952 m above sea level in the Contrada Larcirù area, identical to point B of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

F.

South-western edge of the house at elevation 952 m above sea level in the Contrada Larcirù area, identical to point B of the Gagliano licence.

| G. | Northern edge of the house at elevation 827 m above sea level in the Contrada Piccioniere area, identical to point A of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

G.

Northern edge of the house at elevation 827 m above sea level in the Contrada Piccioniere area, identical to point A of the Gagliano licence.

| H. | Trigonometric point at elevation 910 m above sea level at ‘Femminamorta’, identical to point L of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

H.

Trigonometric point at elevation 910 m above sea level at ‘Femminamorta’, identical to point L of the Gagliano licence.

| I. | East-south-eastern edge of the house at elevation 643 m above sea level in the Contrada Casale area, identical to point I of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

I.

East-south-eastern edge of the house at elevation 643 m above sea level in the Contrada Casale area, identical to point I of the Gagliano licence.

| L. | Southern edge of the house at elevation 630 m above sea level in the Contrada Favara area, identical to point H of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

L.

Southern edge of the house at elevation 630 m above sea level in the Contrada Favara area, identical to point H of the Gagliano licence.

| M. | North-western edge of the house at elevation 599 m above sea level in the Contrada Bordino area, identical to point G of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

M.

North-western edge of the house at elevation 599 m above sea level in the Contrada Bordino area, identical to point G of the Gagliano licence.

| N. | North-eastern edge of the house at elevation 385 m above sea level in the Contrada Garbata area, identical to point F of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

N.

North-eastern edge of the house at elevation 385 m above sea level in the Contrada Garbata area, identical to point F of the Gagliano licence.

| O. | North-western edge of the house at elevation 392 m above sea level in the Contrada Cottonera area, identical to point E of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

O.

North-western edge of the house at elevation 392 m above sea level in the Contrada Cottonera area, identical to point E of the Gagliano licence.

| P. | Eastern edge of the house at elevation 531 m above sea level in the Contrada Cangemi area, identical to point T of the Gagliano licence. |
| --- | --- |

P.

Eastern edge of the house at elevation 531 m above sea level in the Contrada Cangemi area, identical to point T of the Gagliano licence.

| Q. | Point located at the belltower of S. Maria della Croce church at Regalbuto, identical to point A of the Paternò licence. |
| --- | --- |

Q.

Point located at the belltower of S. Maria della Croce church at Regalbuto, identical to point A of the Paternò licence.

| R. | Point located at the crossroads south of Case Longo at elevation 222 m above sea level in Sparagogna, identical to point F of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

R.

Point located at the crossroads south of Case Longo at elevation 222 m above sea level in Sparagogna, identical to point F of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| S. | Trigonometric point located at elevation 455 m above sea level at Rocca d’Aquila, identical to point E of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

S.

Trigonometric point located at elevation 455 m above sea level at Rocca d’Aquila, identical to point E of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| T. | Point located at Dittaino rail station at elevation 255 m above sea level, identical to point D of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

T.

Point located at Dittaino rail station at elevation 255 m above sea level, identical to point D of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| U. | Point located at elevation 387 m above sea level west of the built-up area of Calderari, identical to point C of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

U.

Point located at elevation 387 m above sea level west of the built-up area of Calderari, identical to point C of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| V. | Trigonometric point located at elevation 992 m above sea level at Torre Pisana east of Enna, identical to point B of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

V.

Trigonometric point located at elevation 992 m above sea level at Torre Pisana east of Enna, identical to point B of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| Z. | Intersection point on the northern edge of the Villarosa rail station, identical to point A of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

Z.

Intersection point on the northern edge of the Villarosa rail station, identical to point A of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

| W. | Trigonometric point located at elevation 661 m above sea level in Cozzo Mola di Geracello, identical to point N of the ‘Enna’ licence application. |
| --- | --- |

W.

Trigonometric point located at elevation 661 m above sea level in Cozzo Mola di Geracello, identical to point N of the ‘Enna’ licence application.

Geographical coordinates

| Point | Latitude N | Longitude E (M. Mario) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ‘A’ | 37°35′02′′ | 1°33′37′′ |
| ‘B’ | 37°36′09,84′′ | 1°53′17,04′′ |
| ‘C’ | 37°49′22,20′′ | 1°50′51,64′′ |
| ‘D’ | 37°49′18,10′′ | 2°11′42,3′′ |
| ‘E’ | 37°47′57′′ | 2°10′45,6′′ |
| ‘F’ | 37°47′04′′ | 2°08′05′′ |
| ‘G’ | 37°47′14′′ | 2°05′22,5′′ |
| ‘H’ | 37°46′48′′ | 2°04′40′′ |
| ‘I’ | 37°44′44,5′′ | 2°02′28′′ |
| ‘L’ | 37°43′02′′ | 2°00′44′′ |
| ‘M’ | 37°40′35′′ | 2°02′03′′ |
| ‘N’ | 37°40′34,50′′ | 2°04′40′′ |
| ‘O’ | 37°40′42′′ | 2°05′30′′ |
| ‘P’ | 37°40′41′′ | 2°08′02′′ |
| ‘Q’ | 37°38′57,367′′ | 2°11′20,23′′ |
| ‘R’ | 37°35′50,937′′ | 2°11′01,836′′ |
| ‘S’ | 37°36′04,018′′ | 2°06′19,727′′ |
| ‘T’ | 37°33′50,274′′ | 2°00′36,861′′ |
| ‘U’ | 37°33′43,130′′ | 1°54′25,019′′ |
| ‘V’ | 37°34′01,518′′ | 1°50′08,425′′ |
| ‘Z’ | 37°33′59,983′′ | 1°44′52,818′′ |
| ‘W’ | 37°27′38,776′′ | 1°46′45,763′′ |

Point

Latitude N

Longitude E (M. Mario)

‘A’

37°35′02′′

1°33′37′′

‘B’

37°36′09,84′′

1°53′17,04′′

‘C’

37°49′22,20′′

1°50′51,64′′

‘D’

37°49′18,10′′

2°11′42,3′′

‘E’

37°47′57′′

2°10′45,6′′

‘F’

37°47′04′′

2°08′05′′

‘G’

37°47′14′′

2°05′22,5′′

‘H’

37°46′48′′

2°04′40′′

‘I’

37°44′44,5′′

2°02′28′′

‘L’

37°43′02′′

2°00′44′′

‘M’

37°40′35′′

2°02′03′′

‘N’

37°40′34,50′′

2°04′40′′

‘O’

37°40′42′′

2°05′30′′

‘P’

37°40′41′′

2°08′02′′

‘Q’

37°38′57,367′′

2°11′20,23′′

‘R’

37°35′50,937′′

2°11′01,836′′

‘S’

37°36′04,018′′

2°06′19,727′′

‘T’

37°33′50,274′′

2°00′36,861′′

‘U’

37°33′43,130′′

1°54′25,019′′

‘V’

37°34′01,518′′

1°50′08,425′′

‘Z’

37°33′59,983′′

1°44′52,818′′

‘W’

37°27′38,776′′

1°46′45,763′′

Interested parties may submit an application for a licence for the same area within 90 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union; applications received after that period will be deemed inadmissible. The Decree granting the exploration licence will be issued within six months of the closing date for the submission of competing applications. In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC, notice is also given that the criteria for granting prospection licences, exploration licences and production licences have already been published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities No C 396 of 19 December 1998, with reference to Legislative Decree of the President of the Republic No 625 of 25 November 1996 (published in Official State Gazette of the Italian Republic No 293 of 14 December 1996), which transposes and implements the abovementioned Directive in Italian law, and were specified in the abovementioned Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000 (published in Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily No 32 of 7 July 2000).

The conditions and requirements regarding performance or cessation of activities are laid down in the abovementioned Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000 and in the Standard Specifications issued by Decree No 91 of 30 October 2003 and Decree No 88 of 20 October 2004 of the Regional Minister for Industry and published in Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily Part I, No 49 of 14 November 2003 and Part I, No 46 of 5 November 2004 respectively.

The application documents have been deposited at the Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy of the Regional Department of Industry and Mining at Via Ugo La Malfa 101, 90146 Palermo, Italia, where they may be consulted by any interested party.

Palermo, 16 April 2009.

The Head of the U.R.I.G.

Dr. Ing. Salvatore GIORLANDO

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/20

---

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO EXPLORE FOR OIL AND GAS DESIGNATED PETRALIA SOPRANA

REPUBLIC OF ITALY — REGION OF SICILY

REGIONAL MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY — REGIONAL DEPARTMENT OF MINING

REGIONAL OFFICE FOR HYDROCARBONS AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (U.R.I.G.)

2009/C 173/10

On 9 April 2008, in accordance with Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000, which transposes and applies Directive 94/22/EC, EniMed — Eni Mediterranea Idrocarburi S.p.A., with its registered office at Gela CL, Strada Statale 117 bis, 93012 Contrada Ponte Olivo and Tax Code 12300000150, applied to the Regional Minister for Industry, the competent authority for granting mining rights in the Region of Sicily, at Via Ugo La Malfa 87/89, 90146 Palermo PA, ITALY, for a licence to prospect for oil and gas in an area conventionally known as ‘Petralia Soprana’, extending over 72 750 ha (727,50 km2) in central-northern Sicily within the provinces of Palermo, Caltanisetta and Enna. The above area is bordered to the west by the territory of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence (EniMed 100 %), to the north-west by that of the ‘Montemaggiore Belsito’ licence application and in the other directions by unlicensed territories.

The Palermo Province municipalities concerned are: Alimena, Blufi, Bompietro, Caltavuturo, Castellana Sicula, Gangi, Geraci Siculo, Petralia Soprana, Petralia Sottana and Polizzi Generosa. The Caltanissetta Province municipalities concerned are: Caltanissetta, Resuttano and S. Caterina Villarmosa. The Enna Province municipalities concerned are: Calascibetta, Enna, Leonforte, Nicosia, Sperlinga and Villarosa.

The perimeter of the area for which the licence is requested is delineated by continuous lines between points A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, as defined below:

| A. | Point located at the 41-kilometre point on State Highway 286 leading to Geraci Siculo. |
| --- | --- |

A.

Point located at the 41-kilometre point on State Highway 286 leading to Geraci Siculo.

| B. | Trigonometric point at 1 122 m elevation at Monte Della Grassa, north-east of the built-up area of Gangi. |
| --- | --- |

B.

Trigonometric point at 1 122 m elevation at Monte Della Grassa, north-east of the built-up area of Gangi.

| C. | Point located on the north-western edge of the building at 409 m elevation adjacent to State Highway 121 in the Contrada S. Benedetto district. |
| --- | --- |

C.

Point located on the north-western edge of the building at 409 m elevation adjacent to State Highway 121 in the Contrada S. Benedetto district.

| D. | Trigonometric point at 832 m elevation at Monte Delle rocche, south-west of the built-up area of S. Caterina di Villarmosa; identical to point E of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

D.

Trigonometric point at 832 m elevation at Monte Delle rocche, south-west of the built-up area of S. Caterina di Villarmosa; identical to point E of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence.

| E. | Point located at the 3-kilometre point on the road leading to Resuttano, south of Cozzo Campanella; identical to point D of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

E.

Point located at the 3-kilometre point on the road leading to Resuttano, south of Cozzo Campanella; identical to point D of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence.

| F. | Point located on the north-eastern edge of the building at 616 m elevation of Case Tedesco in Contrada Cannatello; identical to point C of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

F.

Point located on the north-eastern edge of the building at 616 m elevation of Case Tedesco in Contrada Cannatello; identical to point C of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence.

| G. | Point located on the southern edge of the house at 680 m elevation in Contrada S. Filippo south-west of the built-up area of Alimena; identical to point B of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

G.

Point located on the southern edge of the house at 680 m elevation in Contrada S. Filippo south-west of the built-up area of Alimena; identical to point B of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence.

| H. | Point located on the eastern edge of the building at 697 m elevation between Contrada Mangiante and Contrada Scorsone; identical to point A of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

H.

Point located on the eastern edge of the building at 697 m elevation between Contrada Mangiante and Contrada Scorsone; identical to point A of the ‘Casteltermini’ licence.

| I. | Trigonometric point at 947 m elevation at Monte Piombino, south-south-east of the built-up area of Caltavuturo. |
| --- | --- |

I.

Trigonometric point at 947 m elevation at Monte Piombino, south-south-east of the built-up area of Caltavuturo.

Geographical coordinates

| Point | Latitude N | Longitude E (M. Mario) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 37° 49′ 28,61′′ | 01° 42′ 06,78′′ |
| B | 37° 49′ 22,20′′ | 01° 50′ 51,64′′ |
| C | 37° 36′ 09,84′′ | 01° 53′ 17,04′′ |
| D | 37° 35′ 02′′ | 01° 33′ 37′′ |
| E | 37° 40′ 11,42′′ | 01° 33′ 18,84′′ |
| F | 37° 40′ 10′′ | 01° 38′ 02′′ |
| G | 37° 41′ 09′′ | 01° 38′ 32′′ |
| H | 37° 45′ 56,98′′ | 01° 25′ 27,58′′ |
| I | 37° 47′ 34′′ | 01° 28′ 26′′ |

Point

Latitude N

Longitude E (M. Mario)

A

37° 49′ 28,61′′

01° 42′ 06,78′′

B

37° 49′ 22,20′′

01° 50′ 51,64′′

C

37° 36′ 09,84′′

01° 53′ 17,04′′

D

37° 35′ 02′′

01° 33′ 37′′

E

37° 40′ 11,42′′

01° 33′ 18,84′′

F

37° 40′ 10′′

01° 38′ 02′′

G

37° 41′ 09′′

01° 38′ 32′′

H

37° 45′ 56,98′′

01° 25′ 27,58′′

I

37° 47′ 34′′

01° 28′ 26′′

Interested parties may submit an application for a licence for this area within 90 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union; applications received after that period will be deemed inadmissible. The Decree granting the exploration licence will be issued within six months of the closing date for the submission of competing applications. With reference to Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC, notice is also given that the criteria for granting prospection licences, exploration licences and production licences have already been published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 396 of 19 December 1998, with reference to Legislative Decree of the President of the Republic No 625 of 25 November 1996 (published in Official State Gazette of the Italian Republic No 293 of 14 December 1996), which transposes and implements the above-mentioned Directive in Italian law, and were specified in the above-mentioned Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000 (published in Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily No 32 of 7 July 2000).

The conditions and requirements regarding performance or cessation of activities are laid down in the above-mentioned Sicilian Regional Law No 14 of 3 July 2000 and in the Standard Specifications issued by Decree No 91 of 30 October 2003 and Decree No 88 of 20 October 2004 of the Regional Minister for Industry and published in Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily Part I, No 49 of 14 November 2003 and Part I, No 46 of 5 November 2004 respectively.

The application documents have been deposited at the Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy of the Regional Mining Department at Via Ugo La Malfa 101, 90146 Palermo PA, ITALY, where they may be consulted by any interested party.

Palermo, 5 February 2009.

The head of the U.R.I.G.

Dr. Ing. Salvatore GIORLANDO

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/22

---

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR AN OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION LICENCE DESIGNATED VITA

REPUBLIC OF ITALY — REGION OF SICILY

REGIONAL MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY — REGIONAL DEPARTMENT OF MINING

REGIONAL OFFICE FOR HYDROCARBONS AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (U.R.I.G.)

2009/C 173/11

Edison S.p.A., a company with a registered office at Foro Buonaparte 31, Milan, and fiscal code 06722600019, by application of 10 May 2006 and additional application of 2 August 2007, applied to the Regional Minister for Industry, the competent authority for granting mining rights in the Region of Sicily, with its registered office at via Ugo La Malfa 87/89, 90146 Palermo, in accordance with Regional Law of Sicily No 14 of 3 July 2000 transposing and implementing Directive 94/22/EC, for an oil and gas exploration licence (conventionally known as ‘Vita’) extending over 68 210 ha in Western Sicily in the provinces of Palermo and Trapani. The area referred to has free boundaries to the north, east and south. To the west, along the section between points F and G, it is contiguous with the area of the ‘Lippone-Mazara del Vallo’ licence.

In respect of the Province of Palermo, the municipality concerned is Monreale. The municipalities concerned for the Province of Trapani are: Alcamo, Buseto Palizzolo, Calatafimi, Castelvetrano, Gibellina, Partanna, Salaparuta, Salemi, Santa Ninfa, Trapani, Vita, Castellammare del Golfo and Mazara del Vallo.

The perimeter of the area for which the licence is sought is delineated by continuous lines between points A, B, C, D, E, F and G, as follows:

| A. | Point situated at spot elevation 173 metres above sea level, SE of Guarli along the NE edge of the Palermo-Trapani railway bridge (about 1 km East of the Fulgatore station); |
| --- | --- |

A.

Point situated at spot elevation 173 metres above sea level, SE of Guarli along the NE edge of the Palermo-Trapani railway bridge (about 1 km East of the Fulgatore station);

| B. | Point situated at spot elevation 295 metres above sea level (NW edge of C. Polizzi), SE of the built-up area of Alcamo; |
| --- | --- |

B.

Point situated at spot elevation 295 metres above sea level (NW edge of C. Polizzi), SE of the built-up area of Alcamo;

| C. | Point situated two kilometres (milestone) along the SP 19 (between the Salaparuta ruins (Ruderi di Salaparuta) and Salaparuta), in the Contrada of San Giuseppe, SE of Ruderi di Salaparuta; |
| --- | --- |

C.

Point situated two kilometres (milestone) along the SP 19 (between the Salaparuta ruins (Ruderi di Salaparuta) and Salaparuta), in the Contrada of San Giuseppe, SE of Ruderi di Salaparuta;

| D. | Point situated at trigonometric point 231 metres above sea level, adjacent to C. del Barone in the Contrada of Baiata, approximately 575 metres south of the crossroads of ‘Le quattro vie’; |
| --- | --- |

D.

Point situated at trigonometric point 231 metres above sea level, adjacent to C. del Barone in the Contrada of Baiata, approximately 575 metres south of the crossroads of ‘Le quattro vie’;

| E. | Point situated at trigonometric point 151 metres above sea level, in the Contrada of Trinità at the SE edge of the Chiesa della Trinità; |
| --- | --- |

E.

Point situated at trigonometric point 151 metres above sea level, in the Contrada of Trinità at the SE edge of the Chiesa della Trinità;

| F. | Point consisting of a concrete post fixed onto the well at elevation 200 metres situated 275 metres east of the road from the south to Borgo Aquila in the contrada of the same name. It coincides with point ‘f’ of the area of the ‘Lippone-Mazara del Vallo’ licence; |
| --- | --- |

F.

Point consisting of a concrete post fixed onto the well at elevation 200 metres situated 275 metres east of the road from the south to Borgo Aquila in the contrada of the same name. It coincides with point ‘f’ of the area of the ‘Lippone-Mazara del Vallo’ licence;

| G. | Point consisting of a concrete post fixed onto the western edge of Case Aquila at elevation 134 metres in the contrada of the same name. It coincides with point ‘g’ of the area of the ‘Lippone-Mazara del Vallo’ licence. |
| --- | --- |

G.

Point consisting of a concrete post fixed onto the western edge of Case Aquila at elevation 134 metres in the contrada of the same name. It coincides with point ‘g’ of the area of the ‘Lippone-Mazara del Vallo’ licence.

The reference posts for points ‘F’ and ‘G’ are square with 20 cm horizontal sides, which, at the top, taper to a pyramid-like point. Each small post is engraved with two crossed hammers and the letters ‘C.M.’ on one vertical face and, on the opposite side, the letters ‘f’ or ‘g’, as appropriate.

Geographical coordinates

| Point | Latitude N | Longitude E (M. Mario) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 37°57′05,01′′ | 00°14′43,79′′ |
| B | 37°58′07,64′′ | 00°31′50,97′′ |
| C | 37°46′24,84′′ | 00°32′34,14′′ |
| D | 37°40′59,76′′ | 00°25′46,21′′ |
| E | 37°41′07,85′′ | 00°18′08,96′′ |
| F | 37°44′40,50′′ | 00°17′07,60′′ |
| G | 37°45′41,20′′ | 00°16′23,50′′ |

Point

Latitude N

Longitude E (M. Mario)

A

37°57′05,01′′

00°14′43,79′′

B

37°58′07,64′′

00°31′50,97′′

C

37°46′24,84′′

00°32′34,14′′

D

37°40′59,76′′

00°25′46,21′′

E

37°41′07,85′′

00°18′08,96′′

F

37°44′40,50′′

00°17′07,60′′

G

37°45′41,20′′

00°16′23,50′′

Interested parties may submit an application for a licence for the same area within 90 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union; applications received after that period will be declared inadmissible. The Decree granting the exploration licence will be issued within six months of the closing date for the submission of competing applications. In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC, notice is also given that the criteria on the basis of which prospection licences, exploration licences and production licences are issued have already been published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 396 of 19 December 1998, with reference to Legislative Decree of the President of the Republic No 625 of 25 November 1996 (published in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 293 of 14 December 1996), which transposes and implements the abovementioned Directive into Italian law, and were specified in Regional Law of Sicily No 14 of 3 July 2000 (published in Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily No 32 of 7 July 2000).

The conditions and requirements regarding the performance or cessation of activities are laid down in the abovementioned Regional Law of Sicily No 14 of 3 July 2000 and in the Standard Specifications issued by Decree No 91 of 30 October 2003 and Decree No 88 of 20 October 2004 of the Regional Minister for Industry and published in the Official Gazette of the Region of Sicily Part I, No 49 of 14 November 2003 and Part I, No 46 of 5 November 2004 respectively.

The application documents have been filed at the Regional Office for Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy of the Regional Department of Mining, Via Ugo La Mafia 101, 90146 Palermo, Italia where they may be consulted by interested parties.

Palermo, .

The head of the U.R.I.G.

Dr. Ing. Salvatore GIORLANDO

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 173/12

| 1. | On 14 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Volkswagen Bank GmbH (Germany), belonging to the Volkswagen Group, and Fleet Investments BV (the Netherlands), belonging to the Metzler Group, acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, joint control of the undertaking LeasePlan Corporation N.V. (the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 14 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Volkswagen Bank GmbH (Germany), belonging to the Volkswagen Group, and Fleet Investments BV (the Netherlands), belonging to the Metzler Group, acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, joint control of the undertaking LeasePlan Corporation N.V. (the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Volkswagen: development, manufacture and sales of cars and light commercial vehicles including spare parts and accessories; vehicle distribution; financial services relating to the distribution and financing of cars and commercial vehicles; fleet management solutions and R&D, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Volkswagen: development, manufacture and sales of cars and light commercial vehicles including spare parts and accessories; vehicle distribution; financial services relating to the distribution and financing of cars and commercial vehicles; fleet management solutions and R&D,

| — | for Fleet Investments BV: investment and holding company, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Fleet Investments BV: investment and holding company,

| — | for LeasePlan Corporation N.V.: full fleet leasing and management services for light vehicles, short term car rental, finance lease and insurance (brokerage). |
| --- | --- |

—

for LeasePlan Corporation N.V.: full fleet leasing and management services for light vehicles, short term car rental, finance lease and insurance (brokerage).

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5568 — Volkswagen/Fleet Investments/Leaseplan Corporation JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 25.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/25

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5581 — Euroports Holding/Benelux Port Holdings)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 173/13

| 1. | On 17 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Euroports Holding S.á r.l. (‘Euroports’, Luxembourg) wholly-owned subsidiary of BBI Europe Holdings (Malta II) Ltd (‘BBI Europe’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the whole of Benelux Port Holding S.á r.l. (‘BPH’, Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 17 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Euroports Holding S.á r.l. (‘Euroports’, Luxembourg) wholly-owned subsidiary of BBI Europe Holdings (Malta II) Ltd (‘BBI Europe’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the whole of Benelux Port Holding S.á r.l. (‘BPH’, Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Euroports: operation of ports, cargo handling, storage and related services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Euroports: operation of ports, cargo handling, storage and related services,

| — | for BPH: operation of ports, cargo handling and related services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for BPH: operation of ports, cargo handling and related services.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5581 — Euroports Holding/Benelux Port Holdings, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5581 — Euroports Holding/Benelux Port Holdings, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---